Anglo-democracy on trial

OK, the book's done - Not happy, John, defending Australia's democracy - and Webdiary is open for business for 2004. And what cheering news to come back to: the government will ask a former intelligence officer to have a secret inquiry into our intelligence agency's assessments of Iraq's WMDs and report in secret to Cabinet's security committee. Are they kidding?

Trust bank empty, boys.

Last night I read an American book called The five biggest lies Bush told us about Iraq (Allen and Unwin) which details the mendacity of Bush and the mendacity he induced in Tony Blair. Add Australia to the mix and the English model of democracy I've always believed is the best in the world faces an enormous test of credibility.

It was clear before the war for those who read more widely than the mainstream media that Iraq's alleged WMD threat was a sham, an excuse for reasons for war Bush did not believe he could sell to the American people. The latest evidence of the real reasons for war came via US defence department whistleblower Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who used to work next to the US government's propaganda intelligence service the Office of Special Plans, set up to get around the professional intelligence agencies who wouldn't cooperate with Bush's scam. She says there were three reasons - to ensure American multinationals got a slice of the Iraq action, to move US bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, and to reverse Saddam's decision that his oil sales be made in Euros, not $US dollars.

What that meant is that all three governments expected their professional intelligence agencies, legal officers and diplomats to be complicit in the fraud on our democracies and the citizens they were sworn to serve. And the three governments nearly got away with it.

That they haven't - yet - is a tribute to a still strong Anglo-democratic system, although one which is at breaking point. In all three nations some civil servants resigned privately rather than be infected, others leaked, and still others spoke out on the record. And in all three nations, some politicians and former defence and diplomatic chiefs told the truth and warned of the consequences of following a rogue US President in defiance of world public and expert opinion.

The Parliaments of all three countries have fought mightily to get the truth behind the war, although in comparison with Britain and the United States Australia has proved to have far less robust parliamentary accountability mechanisms, which are in urgent need of strengthening.

Looking back, knowing what we now know, we can see clearly the madness of Bush and the unforgivable decisions of Blair and Howard to go along with him. We now know that containment of Saddam's WMD plans had worked; as US Secretary of State Colin Powell said in February 2001, "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMDs". We know that Saddam had no link to September 11 or to Al Qaeda, while Saudi Arabia had financial and personnel links at the highest levels. We know that British intelligence warned that invading Iraq without UN sanction would INCREASE the risk of terrorism and INCREASE the chance of any WMDs Saddam had falling into terrorist hands.

We know that Bush's administration totally ignored - threw away - detailed plans for reconstruction of Iraq in the baseless belief that American troops would be welcomed as liberators, not conquerors, and that they gave their troops no training in how to handle Iraqi cultural sensitivities. Its blind ignorance extended to the belief that there would be no looting or destruction of infrastructure in the power vacuum after victory, despite specific warnings to the contrary from the State Department. And we know that Bush ignored warnings from the cIA and many other experts that democracy would not be possible in the short term in a nation with no experience of democratic freedom and a culture alien to Western style norms.

We know that Bush also ignored expert warnings that a very large occupation force would be required and that billions would need to be spent on reconstruction by the American people, and instead lied to his people that the cost would be minimal.

We know that the Anglo-alliance illegally bugged the UN secretary general Kofi Annan before the war, and that the British, rather than prove the war was legal, dropped leaking charges against a civil servant because she could successfully rely on the defence of "neccessity" - that she was trying to stop an illegal war.

What a sad shadow of a great democratic tradition we're left with. I can't help but wonder if this nightmare would have been avoided if Blair and Howard had understood the wisdom of Simon Crean's statement to Bush when he addressed our Parliament last year:

"On occasion, friends disagree, as we on this side did with you on the war in Iraq. But, such is the strength of our shared values, interests and principles, those differences can enrich rather than diminish, strengthen rather than weaken, our partnership. Our commitment to the Alliance remains unshakeable, as does our commitment to the War on Terror, but friends must be honest with each other. Honesty is, after all, the foundation stone of that great Australian value - 'mateship'."

Bush abused his people's panic and fear after September 11 to get a war he and his neo-conservative advisers wanted under cover of the war on terror. There was dissent at the highest levels of government and from former Republican national security advisers, and the American people were loath to agree without the support of the United Nations. A poll at the time showed they trusted Tony Blair more than any other advocate for war. What if Blair and Howard had had the guts to say no, for America's sake.

My guess is that Bush would not have swung American opinion, and, unlike in Australia - as Howard proved - no American president would launch a war without the majority of American supporting his actions.

Blair and Howard thought they had to say yes or the current American administration would stop being their friend. In doing so, they failed the test of true friendship with the American people.

For when you look at the results of this debacle, it is the American people who have and will suffer. Essential services are at breaking point, and will run down further as Americans try to pay for this war, currently costing $1 billion a week. American soldiers have lost their lives. And America is distrusted around the world.

For the Anglo-democratic system to survive and regenerate, it is imperative that Bush, Blair and Howard lose office and that their successors act urgently to ensure that the professional pride and dedication to truth of its public service is restored and the trust between leaders and citizens repaired.